The Right to Life

[Link of time]

Pretty much.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Ever heard of the term "Gulity by association?"
If those cells were indeed forcibly put there, in my own opinion is an act permissible of death, however not necessary in most cases (though not condoning the action, just saying sometimes just simply not nessary) for both the offender and his 'cells.'
The offender is someone's son/daughter, just like the victim is. They shouldn't have a child forced upon them, however.

Yeah pebble explained this and I got it. Just a quick side note though, they can always put the child up for adaptation. Not the best life but it's a life.

 

[DeletedUser36436]

Yeah pebble explained this and I got it. Just a quick side note though, they can always put the child up for adaptation. Not the best life but it's a life.

Well that still deducts from the life it could be living and maybe the life is better off not existing at all.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Ever heard of the term "Gulity by association?"
If those cells were indeed forcibly put there, in my own opinion is an act permissible of death, however not necessary in most cases (though not condoning the action, just saying sometimes just simply not nessary) for both the offender and his 'cells.'
The offender is someone's son/daughter, just like the victim is. They shouldn't have a child forced upon them, however.

Let's be clear: not my view.

 

[DeletedUser]

Be mature here. If this turns into a flame/hate fest, I'll simply close it and hand out infractions....

Well don't forget to that you should be numero uno on the "Infraction List" for posting a thread in the knowledge that it may incite hatred. You knew damn well what the debate would turn on before you wrote the OP. A demonstration of double standards and hypocrisy on your part!

 

[DeletedUser]

I made a thread about this 3 years back where you can find my position on this which hasn't changed much although I would word certain things differently now. Still busy so won't elaborate too much on stuff.

Be mature here. If this turns into a flame/hate fest, I'll simply close it and hand out infractions. Civility and respect will get you a long way, now let's begin:

Definition of murder: the premeditated taking of a human life who has not committed an act deserving of death.

Now, I will proceed:

At one point I did not exist. I was not an idea, not a thought, not a concept feasible to the mind. I then became an idea and a concept, but my physical nature did not yet exist. Then, one day, it did. Starting out as a clump of cells, my physical nature began. Although I could not yet be classified scientifically as “human”, the cells that existed embodied the idea and concept of what I would become – human.

The cells that were not scientifically human were, conceptually and idealistically, human. If one could view the cells and ask my parents “What is that?” they would most assuredly say something to the effect that the clump of cells was their child or soon-to-be child. The clump of cells not yet human were used to describe what would one day be considered human in several months.

All of this to say, although the clump of cells is not defined as human, the cells are undoubtedly known to have the capacity and definite conclusion of becoming human. This then means that interfering with the cell becoming human would therefore be denying the potential existence its humanity with full knowing of the act committed.
As humans are certain to experience joy and pain, among other things, we therefore can determine that by denying the cells humanity by interfering, we have deprived the potential existence for joy as well as pain. We have also denied the cells the potential to think and have choice.

Allow me to construct another argument: a child is promised he will be taken to a theme park. However, when the day comes, the parents take away the theme park for no just cause on the child’s part. The child was undoubtedly promised to enjoy himself, but the potential for the joy was taken. We can adequately say that the joy was stolen from the child unjustly.

Using the similar argument: if a cell is destined to have joy through existence, but then denied the existence for no just cause on the cells’ part, the cell has therefore been denied joy unjustly. Apply the same argument for every aspect of humanity such as love, pain, hate, thinking, experiences, and, most importantly, life.

Thus, we have stolen human life unjustly from the cell- unjustly taken human life (from what it is taken from is irrelevant to the definition). As we knew the cell had the potential to become human, the unjust denial was premeditated. In essence, we have killed the potential for life and thus sentenced the potential human to death for no just cause.
We therefore are guilty of the taking of a human life that has not done anything deserving of death. In adherence to the initial definition, we are guilty of murder.

I wasn't sure whether you were arguing against abortions or against masturbation and menstruation. The resulting ejected cells from those things also have the potential to become human. Just because something has potential to be something doesn't mean it has to become that. I can potentially become the richest man on earth but that doesn't mean I was robbed if I don't end up as the richest man.

Abortion should remain legal.

Oh, then yes abortion is muder in all other cases besides rape.

lol.

OK so you are denying a child any and all happiness because they might be sad.

No you're not denying a child that because it's not a child.

This. Sorry if my dead-set Christian and Republican opinions bore you.

Definition of murder: the premeditated taking of a human life who has not committed an act deserving of death.

I believe, by Pebble's definition of murder abortion of a child caused by rape is indeed not murder.

by this definition the abortion of the resulting embryo of rape would still be murder mate.

Assuming that the bundle of cells inside the uterus has any sentience, it would be like telling a mouse that you're going to take him to an amusement park.
Not only does it not understand a word of what you're saying, but even if it did it has no concept of what an amusement park is. It would not even be excited at the prospect of going to this amusement park, as, again, it has literally no idea what amusement means, or what a park is, or what they mean when you put them together. It is so far detached from what it knows that it would probably simply ignore it as you speaking gibberish.
So, when it doesn't happen, it won't even know.

Alternatively, if that little bundle of cells has no sentience, it would be like telling a book that you're going to take it to an amusement park. It cannot comprehend you, doesn't feel emotion, and regardless of whether you do or don't will not have the capability to care.

Yup, this is the argument I was going to make.

An embryo is not conscious. It's quite literally a parasite, it cannot live without its host.

For the first part, I personally think denying life to any human to be morally wrong...damn the social situations which the murder resides in. Other than that, the first part seemed rather irrelevant to the argument itself.

On to your reply:

You seemed to have severely missed the point and also took the analogy and used it to mock the argument itself (not nice). Anyway, allow me to paint the picture a bit clearer for you since you missed the point by such a large margin-

The debate was never about the sentience of the cells. At all.
It's understanding of life (or an amusement park) is irrelevant. If I'm promised payment but don't know what gold is, I still should expect payment. My understanding of the payment is irrelevant.
It's knowledge of what was denied is irrelevant. If I were to steal something of value and you never notice, does that make my act morally permissible? If you think so, that is at best morally flawed and at worst borderline sociopathic.

You so so missed the point. The point was that the cells have POTENTIAL to be human and are KNOWN TO BE capable of humanity and that if there was NO INTERFERENCE that clump of cells WOULD BE human. Thus, by interfering in the process by abortion, there is a denied human life, premeditated and full knowing of what was being done. And since the clump of cells did nothing to warrant death on itself, there is no just cause to kill the human it would become, therefore it is murder.

Think of it in the future tense. Assuming the child was not aborted, that child would exist as a human. By aborting, that human is being denied life before it has a chance to live. That human which would exist (who was guaranteed life, known to be capable of life, and deserving nothing to end that life) was effectively murdered. I know it takes a bit to stretch your mind from the confines of its temporal box and actually see things from a new perspective, but give it a shot.

Potential != reality. That's honestly all you need to realize. Embryos could be people yeah but they aren't yet so what's the problem in aborting them? That sounds a bit lighthearted and it's obviously an extremely difficult decision but my point stands.

Ever heard of the term "Gulity by association?"
If those cells were indeed forcibly put there, in my own opinion is an act permissible of death, however not necessary in most cases (though not condoning the action, just saying sometimes just simply not nessary) for both the offender and his 'cells.'
The offender is someone's son/daughter, just like the victim is. They shouldn't have a child forced upon them, however.

Your last sentence is the embodiment of my entire stance on this. Having a child is probably the most life-changing event that could happen to you. Nobody should have a child forced upon them, so everyone should have the option to abort.

Yeah pebble explained this and I got it. Just a quick side note though, they can always put the child up for adaptation. Not the best life but it's a life.

"not the best life" how? If the child is adopted from age <1 they will literally not notice unless they are told. I don't think you can say something about the quality of life because it's completely unrelated.

Well don't forget to that you should be numero uno on the "Infraction List" for posting a thread in the knowledge that it may incite hatred. You knew damn well what the debate would turn on before you wrote the OP. A demonstration of double standards and hypocrisy on your part!

Stop trying to get things censored because of what COULD happen. Also if you actually hate anyone on this forum you care way too much about this place.

 

[DeletedUser49358]

"not the best life" how? If the child is adopted from age <1 they will literally not notice unless they are told. I don't think you can say something about the quality of life because it's completely unrelated.

This ... so much this, I have seen/heard the quality of life argument made so many times in supporting and justifying the act of abortion and is easily the worst argument that a person can make. How can anyone bring up the topic of quality of life with abortions when the alternative is no life at all. You can look online and find numerous blogs of people who were conceived from rape and put up for adoption and lived a life not much different from a child who grew up with both their biological parents and some of them have even gone on to become active speakers against abortion. I would love to link one such video in particular to this post but unfortunately I'm unable to find it.

 

[Link of time]

Skully, how is it 'Not a child?'

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Well that still deducts from the life it could be living and maybe the life is better off not existing at all.

I would personally disagree but this discuss would probably lead us off topic.

No you're not denying a child that because it's not a child

I'm too lazy to go back and look at the context in which I was speaking but I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Either way I reference pebble's original argument in response to this.

"not the best life" how? If the child is adopted from age <1 they will literally not notice unless they are told. I don't think you can say something about the quality of life because it's completely unrelated.

for this argument that pebble has made yeah the quality of life would be mostly irrelevant.

 

[DeletedUser]

You so so missed the point. The point was that the cells have POTENTIAL to be human and are KNOWN TO BE capable of humanity and that if there was NO INTERFERENCE that clump of cells WOULD BE human. Thus, by interfering in the process by abortion, there is a denied human life, premeditated and full knowing of what was being done. And since the clump of cells did nothing to warrant death on itself, there is no just cause to kill the human it would become, therefore it is murder.

Think of it in the future tense. Assuming the child was not aborted, that child would exist as a human. By aborting, that human is being denied life before it has a chance to live. That human which would exist (who was guaranteed life, known to be capable of life, and deserving nothing to end that life) was effectively murdered. I know it takes a bit to stretch your mind from the confines of its temporal box and actually see things from a new perspective, but give it a shot.

(cells that have potential to be human) != (a child)
It is also never "guaranteed" life beyond being the clump of cells that it is.

The mother could be killed the next day. She could miscarry. The cells could misdevelop and cause it to never become a child anyway.
There is no guarantee that that "child" would ever see the light of day.

Would you like to know what is actually guaranteed?
That it will, eventually, cease to exists. It will die. That is guaranteed.


Something having the potential to do something is not a guarantee that it will do it.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

(cells that have potential to be human) != (a child)
It is also never "guaranteed" life beyond being the clump of cells that it is.

The mother could be killed the next day. She could miscarry. The cells could misdevelop and cause it to never become a child anyway.
There is no guarantee that that "child" would ever see the light of day.

Would you like to know what is actually guaranteed?
That it will, eventually, cease to exists. It will die. That is guaranteed.


Something having the potential to do something is not a guarantee that it will do it.

I'll leave pebble to respond to most of this but I would just like to point out that if the cells aren't guaranteed life then they can't be guaranteed death. You can't have life without death or death without life.

 

[DeletedUser]

Skully, how is it 'Not a child?'

At the stage in which the vast majority of the abortions take place, the embryo is not a child. It's not a human. It has no conscience, in fact, it has no functioning brain. It's a clump of mostly stemcells. It's a parasite by definition.

Even after that, the border gets a bit more blurry but it is still not an individual living organism.

After roughly 30 weeks the fetus could live on its own, and at that point I am against abortion by choice as it's only a few weeks untill you could put it up for adoption if you don't want it. But regardless at that point I an fairly certain the only abortions that do happen are because the mother's life is in danger or if the child would have a serious handicap/illness.

 

[Link of time]

Why does adoption sound so easy for you? How on Eatth could you even thing about calling a child (yes a child) a parasite? And how does handicap matter at all?

 

[DeletedUser]

Why does adoption sound so easy for you?

Adoption seems the logical next step in the situation of "I'm 30 weeks pregnant" and "I don't want a child after all." Do you have a better idea? Other than abortion which would be a solution to that problem as well

How on Eatth could you even thing about calling a child (yes a child) a parasite?

Because it fits perfectly in its definition..?

parasite
parəsʌɪt
noun
An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.

That is quite literally what an embryo is.

And how does handicap matter at all?

There are handicaps/disabilities which will kill a baby in a month/year/few years. Why let it suffer at all?

Additionally, it can be extremely hard and taxing to raise a child with a less severe handicap. If the parents don't want to raise said child they should be bale to abort the pregnancy. (possibly try again)


You're also ignoring the rest of my post?



Another argument I haven't seen made yet is that abortions will happen regardless, so why not make it legal and ensure that they are being done safely.

 

[Link of time]

If they don't want the child, too bad, they brought it into this world.

*facepalm* no just no. That's one of the most cynical things I've ever heard.

If it's so handicapped it doesn't have any rememberence of this pain.
And no, it is your responsibility to raise the child regardless of handicap. If you can't financially afford it, sorry, or yes, put it up for adoption.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

There are handicaps/disabilities which will kill a baby in a month/year/few years. Why let it suffer at all?

Out of curiosity what's your view on euthanasia for humans?

Additionally, it can be extremely hard and taxing to raise a child with a less severe handicap. If the parents don't want to raise said child they should be bale to abort the pregnancy. (possibly try again)

That sounds kind of bad don't you think. "I'm sorry you don't have a brother Johnny we couldn't afford him."
I can understand the reasoning some people feeling the need for an abortion but that one is just really horrible in my opinion.

Another argument I haven't seen made yet is that abortions will happen regardless, so why not make it legal and ensure that they are being done safely.

I'm sorry that is just a really stupid argument for someone to use.

 

[Link of time]

^^^^ yep

 

[DeletedUser]

If they don't want the child, too bad, they brought it into this world.

You do know that no birth control works 100% and that accidents do happen? Do you want to outlaw sex for pleasure entirely?

*facepalm* no just no. That's one of the most cynical things I've ever heard.

Lol what a rebuttal.. It might be the most cynical thing that you heard but that doesn't change the facts.

If it's so handicapped it doesn't have any rememberence of this pain.
And no, it is your responsibility to raise the child regardless of handicap. If you can't financially afford it, sorry, or yes, put it up for adoption.

That's nonsense there are hundreds of disabilities which are terminal and cause great suffering.
And again, I disagree. I think you're underestimating how hard it can be to raise a child with a severe handicap. Nobody should be forced to do so. Also putting up severly handicapped children up for adoption is unheard of I'm fairly certain.

Out of curiosity what's your view on euthanasia for humans?

Should be entirely up to the person.

That sounds kind of bad don't you think. "I'm sorry you don't have a bother Johnny we couldn't afford him."
I can understand the reasoning some people feel the need for an abortion but that one is just really horrible in my opinion.

with taxing I meant mentally, emotionally. Although kids are definitely extremely expensive but if you don't want a kid for monetary reasons you'd have aborted much earlier (and subsequently should be allowed imo, see earlier posts)

I'm sorry that is just a really stupid argument for someone to use.

Lol it's not though. 'coathanger abortions' are widespread in countries where it's illegal. They are also extremely dangerous. If you truly want an abortion you could get one regardless of the law. It would just be much more dangerous.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Well don't forget to that you should be numero uno on the "Infraction List" for posting a thread in the knowledge that it may incite hatred. You knew damn well what the debate would turn on before you wrote the OP. A demonstration of double standards and hypocrisy on your part!

I'll have to add Omniscience to my mod resume. Didn't know I possessed infinite knowledge of all things to come. And, side note: you're the only one being remotely hostile thus far. Kthxbye.

I wasn't sure whether you were arguing against abortions or against masturbation and menstruation. The resulting ejected cells from those things also have the potential to become human. Just because something has potential to be something doesn't mean it has to become that. I can potentially become the richest man on earth but that doesn't mean I was robbed if I don't end up as the richest man.

Masturbation/menstruation both do not have the potential to become human unless certain circumstances are enacted by choice. I think we can all make a clear distinction from an embryo caused by intercourse between two consenting adults from masturbation/menstruation. If not, I'm seriously wasting my time here.

No you're not denying a child that because it's not a child.

My point wasn't that the embryo is a child and therefore killing it is murder of a child. Rather that that embryo has potential to be human, deserved nothing to receive a force removing that potential, and therefore the mother has effectively murdered the child which would exist.

It's a philosophical argument designed to circumvent the science of the embryo not being a technical human being. And, quite frankly, it works.

If there was an apple tree and apples are definite to grow (at least one), but I chop the tree down, I essentially removed the apples from their future existence. Apply the same logic to the embryo and it would be murder.

by this definition the abortion of the resulting embryo of rape would still be murder mate

Refer to my reply to Genios:

This is where I get a bit sketchy on this (as everyone does). If rape is the cause of the impregnation the main key would be the "premeditated" aspect as well as the "promise of human life" aspect.

The argument practically boils down to this: The cells are to become human. The cells are known to become and be able to become human. By denying that process, you are denying human life. This then translates to murder.

With rape, this equation becomes a bit skewed. Yes, the cells are still to become human. The cells are known to become and able to become human. And by denying the process you are denying human life, which translates to murder.

The issue arises that there was no true promise of life to the child through consenting to have intercourse. While it technically is still murder by killing the child, the only consenting party to the act which instilled the promise of life was on the part of the rapist father. Therefore, by aborting the child, the mother (who did not promise life to the child by any means as she did not consent) is indemnified from the accusations of murder. However, the rapist father did consent and therefore carries the weight of promising life to said child.

Since life was guaranteed by that party, should the baby be aborted, I would accuse the rapist of murder (and rape) and accuse the woman of murder but protect it under the law. Or she could have the child. Up to her at that point.

Do bear in mind, this is an argument in progress being built as I go. Subject to change at any point.

An embryo is not conscious. It's quite literally a parasite, it cannot live without its host.

Technically, yes. A parasite. However, this parasite will become human if there is no impeding force. Thus, any impediment placed by a human being which prevents this parasite from achieving humanity has effectively robbed the parasite of existence and, therefore, life. I call that murder.

Potential != reality. That's honestly all you need to realize. Embryos could be people yeah but they aren't yet so what's the problem in aborting them? That sounds a bit lighthearted and it's obviously an extremely difficult decision but my point stands.

This is the crux of the argument and the very question I asked myself when I wrote it months ago: "How can I make that embryo human and, at the same time, scientifically not human?" And my result was the argument that the human existence the embryo would achieve, assuming no abortion, is murdered when the abortion takes place.

I'd even go so far as to take the stance of an unnatural force impeding the natural process stance. If anything, that has to make sense. Much like a gun is not a "natural" way for one do die, abortion is not either. The simple fact is, you aren't making the connection and seeing the human which would exist assuming the unnatural force was not present.

Your last sentence is the embodiment of my entire stance on this. Having a child is probably the most life-changing event that could happen to you. Nobody should have a child forced upon them, so everyone should have the option to abort.

Forced upon them? Definitely not. Refer to my Genios reply. However, if consenting to have sex, the two individuals are aware of the potential outcome of such an act. Therefore, any resulting consequences were of their own doing and not a just reason to terminate a future human life.

Stop trying to get things censored because of what COULD happen. Also if you actually hate anyone on this forum you care way too much about this place.

Look here, Archon.

(cells that have potential to be human) != (a child)
It is also never "guaranteed" life beyond being the clump of cells that it is.

It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present.

The mother could be killed the next day. She could miscarry. The cells could misdevelop and cause it to never become a child anyway.
There is no guarantee that that "child" would ever see the light of day.

All of these are not choices by any individual. Simply medical complications. Murder has to be a conscious choice. If a mother was drugged and forced to have an abortion, I wouldn't accuse the mother of murder as she didn't choose to have the process done.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

You do know that no birth control works 100% and that accidents do happen? Do you want to outlaw sex for pleasure entirely?


Lol what a rebuttal.. It might be the most cynical thing that you heard but that doesn't change the facts.


That's nonsense there are hundreds of disabilities which are terminal and cause great suffering.
And again, I disagree. I think you're underestimating how hard it can be to raise a child with a severe handicap. Nobody should be forced to do so. Also putting up severly handicapped children up for adoption is unheard of I'm fairly certain.



Should be entirely up to the person.


with taxing I meant mentally, emotionally. Although kids are definitely extremely expensive but if you don't want a kid for monetary reasons you'd have aborted much earlier (and subsequently should be allowed imo, see earlier posts)


Lol it's not though. 'coathanger abortions' are widespread in countries where it's illegal. They are also extremely dangerous. If you truly want an abortion you could get one regardless of the law. It would just be much more dangerous.

Mistakes still have consequences.

Agree. Cynical doesn't make it false. Still cynical though

Agree on euthanasia.